Manor, James. "What do they know of India who only India know? The uses of comparative politics". Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, Vol.48, No.4 (2010): 505-516.

Manor, James. "What do they know of India who only India know? The uses of comparative politics". Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, Vol.48, No.4 (2010): 505-516.

• Since 1989, power in India has become much more decentralized, as the retirement of Rajiv Gandhi marked the end of the era when the Indian National Congress party was able to attain majorities in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of parliament, and thus centralize all power in the hands of the Prime Minister. In only a few years India went from being an extremely centralized country to an extremely decentralized country (507).
• The integrity of democratic institutions, including political parties, regional governments, and the judiciary, were compromised during the governments of Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, as both Prime Ministers sought to monopolize power. The end of centralized rule in 1989 triggered a rebirth of other political organs, which have fully recovered (507-508).
• Indian government under the Gandhi governments has marked by corruption and abuse of power at the highest levels of government. Since 1989, the decentralization of power has prevented abuse of leading politicians, who are now checked by other institutions (508).
• Indian voters rarely reelect politicians, removing the government at the state level in 70% of elections since the 1980s. This inability to attain reelection made Indian politicians realize that their patronage networks were inadequate and seek other strategies, including identity politics, crackdowns on democracy, and radical decentralization (508-509). 
• This only began to change after 2003, when new methods of tax collection and a surge in economic growth greatly expanded state government revenues, allowing states to invest heavily in popular social programs. This appears to have made politicians more popular and much more likely to be reelected (509-510).
• Since the 1990s, the caste hierarchies which traditionally dominated social and political life in villages, and allowed high caste individuals to mobilize village resources, have collapsed. Politicians have since been forced to seek resources at higher levels of government, sometimes through devolved village governments called panchayat, and more often through informal means. Occupying these informal positions in village government has accelerated social mobility (510-511).
• Specific identities do not dominate Indian politics for long periods of time, with identities becoming political salient for brief periods before attention shifting towards another identity. Switches between caste, religious, local, regional, and national identities can be very rapid (512-513).
• The author, recognizing that most Indian academics lack the resources to research other areas of the world, recommends that Indian academics research historical Indian politics and do comparative work between different Indian states, to better understand regional variations (513).